Playlist add... The Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion for relief is predicated on the violation of plaintiff’s rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment in bringing about the January 26, 2024 decision. The violation of the U.S. Constitution is not to be taken lightly. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Historically, this guarantee of due process has been applied to deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. E. g., Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878) (assessment of real estate); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) (stomach pumping); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) (suspension of driver's license); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (paddling student); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (intentional destruction of inmate's property). No decision of this Court before Parratt supported the view that negligent conduct by a state official, even though causing injury, constitutes a deprivation under the Due Process Clause. This history reflects the traditional and common-sense notion that the Due Process Clause, like its forebear in the Magna Carta, see Corwin, The Doctrine of Due Process of Law Before the Civil War, 24 Harv. L. Rev. 366, 368 (1911), was "`intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government,'" Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 527 (1884) (quoting Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244 (1819)). See also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974) ("The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 123 (1889)"); Parratt, supra, at 549 (POWELL, J., concurring in result). By requiring the government to follow appropriate procedures when its agents decide to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," the Due Process Clause promotes fairness in such decisions. And by barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them, e. g., Rochin, supra, it serves to prevent governmental power from being "used for purposes of oppression," Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 277 (1856) (discussing Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment). Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331-32 (1986) The assertion without evidence violates due process because, “[w]here the evidence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealously, a party’s right to show that it is untrue depends on the rights of confrontation and cross-examination. The Court has thus been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not only in criminal cases, . . . but also in all types of cases where administrative . . . actions were under scrutiny” Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496-97 (1959). The 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause also intends to protect the plaintiff from the State’s arbitrary infliction which is a case of “selective prosecution” actionable under the federal Constitution. See Esmail v. Macrane, 53 F.3d 176, 178-79 (7th Cir. 1995). “This term has two meanings in law. The first is simply failing to prosecute all known lawbreakers, whether because of ineptitude or (more commonly) because of lack of adequate resources. The resulting pattern of nonenforcement may be random, or an effort may be made to get the most bang for the prosecutorial buck by concentrating on the most newsworthy lawbreakers, but in either case the result is that people who are equally guilty of crimes or other violations receive unequal treatment, with some being punished and others getting off scot-free. That form of selective prosecution, although it involves dramatically unequal legal treatment, has no standing in equal protection law. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 1530-31, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985); United States v. Smith, 953 F.2d 1060, 1063 (7th Cir. 1992). The second form of selective prosecution, and the only one that is actionable under the federal Constitution, is where the decision to prosecute is made either in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right, such as the right to free speech or to the free exercise of religion, or because of membership in a vulnerable group. E.g., Wayte v. United States, supra, 470 U.S. at 608, 105 S.Ct. at 1531.” Id., 53 F.3d 176, 178-79. The State’s decision to permit, impede, or block the plaintiff’s prosecution of a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim is innately a selective prosecution that occurs in retaliation for the plaintiff’s exercise of the right to prosecute a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-83, 1985-1986, this right was granted by congress as authorized by U.S. Constitution Amend. 14 §5. Use of the 11th amendment as evidence to support the State’s offer of privilege runs counter to the 11th amendment’s deference to the State. In the federal court system of justice, the 11th amendment does not define the state’s sovereign immunity boundaries. Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina Ports A., 535 U.S. 743, 753 (2002) (“the Eleventh Amendment does not define the scope of the States' sovereign immunity; it is but one particular exemplification of that immunity. Cf. Blatchford, supra, at 779 ("[W]e have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms").”). The 11th creates an assumption based upon very generalized categories of suites. Such an assumption, however, does not end our inquiry as this Court has repeatedly held that the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the States extends beyond the literal text of the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Alden, supra (holding that sovereign immunity shields States from private suits in state courts pursuant to federal causes of action); Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by Indian tribes); Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313 (1934) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by foreign nations); Ex parte New York, 256 U.S. 490 (1921) (applying state sovereign immunity to admiralty proceedings); Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 (1900) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by federal corporations); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (applying state sovereign immunity to suits by a State's own citizens under federal-question jurisdiction). Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina Ports A., 535 U.S. 743, 754 (2002) The assumption is that generally a defense of sovereign immunity is permissible in the plaintiff’s suit, but there is not an assumption that any and every state officer or government employee is protected by sovereign immunity based only on the 11th. Conversely, due process does not necessarily require affording a party the opportunity to present every available defense before entry of judgment, and a state may limit available defenses in an action. Well... into the void.
My favorite quote from this film is when Drummond (Tracy) tells the Judge (Henry Morgan) "And soon your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating, we'll be marching backward...BACKWARD... through the glorious ages of that 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind." That’s what Trump/MAGA is doing. Marching us backward.
I love that line. "Our house, or his church..." So powerful. He doesn't say "my" house, as so many men of the period might have. He asks her to build something together as a partner. It's both respectful and loving. She can have the dream of her father, or she can have her own dream. But she can't linger in both places. Sometimes in life you have to pick a side. Ignorance and selfish bliss, or knowledge and pain.... and truth. So relevant right now. Just do what they say and think like they think, put on the little red hat, and start saying "woke" this and "woke" that, and you'll find so many friends. But the moment you ask why you should treat someone different as evil, or ask why you have to see your fellow American as the devil... they'll kick you out so fast your head will spin.
I say Donna Anderson's line to anyone I dislike, because it disturbs them somehow. "Bert and I don't live on the top of the world---We live in Hillsborough, and when the sun goes down it's dark. Now why do you have to come here and make it different?"
"You'll kill one of their fairytale notions and they'll bring down the wrath of God, Brady, and the state legislature every time." Tell me he hasn't described the current political climate with its Christofascists and magical thinking.
Donna Anderson ,is the actress who portrays Rachel Brown . born in the late 30s , she is about the same age as Connie Stevens and Connie Francis , and happily , all 3 of the beauties are still alive today . I kinda agree with Rachel's character , as Darwin was just a lying trouble - maker .
My wife , son and i and our friends at our Fundamental Baptist Church are value producing humans , we are not filthy apes . Our ancestors are Adam and Eve , not some slimy creature that ' supposedly ' crawled out of the ocean a billion years ago . No one ever saw a filthy ape ' magically ' turn into a human . Darwin lied that a filthy ape can ' magically ' turn into a human . No ape or monkey is turning into a human today . I saw my grandparents and they weren't monkeys .@@2l84me8
Cates, Drummond and their ilk had to deal with this loneliest feeling for years and years but they stuck to their beliefs. Brady got a taste of that feeling at the end and couldn't handle it for more than a few minutes.
Reminds me of when I joined the Marine Corps while growing up in the Bible Belt. Everyone I knew tried their best to stop me from leaving. It was almost a jihad from the way they acted. Insults, put downs, intimidation, the works. That was 40 years ago and I still think about it. I’m so happy I moved out right after high school.
Really? Because I grew up in the Bible belt as well, and that's not my experience at all. I never, ever, in all the fifty-three years I've lived on this earth -- and I say this as an atheist who grew up in an evangelical family, but long ago lost all his belief in revealed religion -- met an evangelical who tried to keep anyone from joining the military to serve his country. Unless perhaps because they thought he wasn't cut out for military life and was making a mistake -- but that was nothing to do with religion. I joined the army after I finished college, and nobody said a word to discourage me from signing up. I've known evangelicals all my life, and whatever their flaws, I've never known them to behave in the way you describe. I'm not discounting your experience, and I'll grant it's possible your community was filled with a particularly bad, cult-like version of Christians. But I really don't believe that's mainstream Christianity in the 20th/21st century. Not all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church.
@@ddave7026 Because my wanting to leave was to get away from religion, and where I grew up, it was either factory worker, farmer or military. Religion for my family was conformity, they could not handle the fact that I joined to get away from that conformity. Bible Belt all the way. My experience was just like that courtroom, and I was all alone with no one to support me. Of course, me telling them my reasons for leaving them didn’t help too much. 🤣🤣🤣 Spencer Tracy talking to Dick York about conformity was exactly what I was going through. It wasn’t about the military, it was why I joined the military, which was getting away from them and their beliefs. That’s why they tried so hard to stop me.
@@blockmasterscott what's sad, I myself think. am now a Christian, I was fairly agnostic my whole life. My daughter is a sergeant in the army airborne division and she actually found faith IN the service! Fundamentalists are a funny bunch.
I like what York tells his fiancee , that the religion practiced in that town isn't the Christianity practiced in other places ( paraphrased) . It's so poignant and true ! I guess I'd of been tied to a sour apple tree there too , not that I believe all of sciences theories are facts ,but I do believe science has truths to tell us !!!
This speech is more relevant in 2021 then it was in 1960 when this film was made, or the play in 1955, or the Scopes Money Trial from 1925 which inspired it. Its been almost a hundred years and we are are more backward now than ever...and accelerating.
@@embossed64 The Black Plague was in the 14th century and has no connection to the moral values of the time period. Catholic nationalism is not only great but essential. The world being ruled by kings and emperors at the service of the Church is the most natural system of government that the world has ever seen and the one best conducive to order, right moral virtue, and the worship of Almighty God. Let their be a Saint Louis IX in every nation!
@@embossed64 The Lord exists because the universe had a beginning and it is impossible for something to be created out of nothing. His existence is testified to in an indisputable way in Sacred Scriptures, with Old Testament prophesies being fulfilled in the new, as well as through the traditions of the Church and a multitude of miracles throughout the centuries. Monarchy is the best form of government because it most closely corresponds to the rule of Christ. Power, the Bible tells us, comes from God, but in democracy, it comes from the people. The idea that people can vote on what is true or false, and on what is right versus what is wrong, is absurd.
60 years later and those words still ring truth: _"You kill one of their Fairy Tale notions and they'll bring down the wrath of God, Brady and the State Legislature on you every time."_
The magnitude of him saying, "It's his church or our house, and you can't live in both" is staggering. To say that to a preacher's daughter took balls of steel. Actually not that--if you stand in your principles, it doesn't have to come down to balls of steel at all.
This movie was little more than a propaganda version of a trial that was intentionally politically set-up to play science (and the new ACLU) as heroic, and any and all objectors as fundamentalist bumpkins. The state never required the teaching of creationism and forbid the teaching of evolution because it felt that the children were too young for politicized inculcation either way. The text in question, "A Civic Biology", had almost nothing to do with Darwin's theory and everything to do with race and class based Social Darwinism coupled with the 1925 voguish mantra of eugenics. Of note was that William Jennings Bryan was grilled on the stand while Darrow and the other Scopes' lawyers got a free pass by refusing to have their five science "experts" cross examined. Before he could be cross-examined, Darrow (the noble Spencer Tracy character) pled guilty, threw in the towel.
"But all you have to do is knock on any door and say if you let me in I'll live they way you want me to live and I'll think they way you want me to think....and you'll never be lonely again" Truer today then it was then only the "progressives" are the bullies now.
Exactly! My family (on all sides) and I are heavily liberal. But this is the type of attitude and thinking that has started bugging us more and more for the last 1/2 decade or so. Definitely with conservatives/the right (I grew up religious and my high school community are all heavily conservative) - but now it's increasingly the left and 'woke culture' as well. Every so often, I re-watch this movie and am always struck and reminded how this is truly timelessly applicable - regardless of when or where you live.
July 2022 and Roe v Wade has been overturned. A 10-year-old rape victim had to flee her state to keep from being forced into giving birth against her will. I'm no big fan of the "ultra woke", but if you think progressives are the bullies - I'd disagree! I'd say the right wing Theocrats who would force their religious beliefs down the throats of others still pose the real threat.
95 years ago....and you can still have a conversation like this with millions that refuse science because they need to believe in fables for their life to mean something. What a disgrace to the human mind.
@@user-pi3hd2bt3f true, but when nobody has seen or heard from him, all we are left with are his followers and their interpretations of said god's word.
@@user-wo7ql7or3g not all His followers are bad tho In fact most aren't. But because those that use theor faith to do harm are the loudest people think we are all like this
I can't people think that Jennifer's version of this song is better. You can hear her voice cracking. She did okay in her version of Sway but she was straining here.
That’s the point though, if you’ve seen the movie it makes sense why her voice should crack a bit. Her character isn’t actually a singer she just does it because of the memories imprinted in her. I see it as being in character. Also her voice is softer and more sultry.
